site and networking commissioning appendix specific to lyon visit

Commissioning/Facilities Issues LYON November , 2007 1

Site and Networking Commissioning

Appendix specific to Lyon visit

Stefano BelforteDaniele BonacorsiFrank Wuerthwein

November , 2007Commissioning/Facilities Issues LYON 2

SiteDB : Lyon


SiteDB : GRIF


SiteDB: Belgium


SiteDB : Beijing


Site DB : IN2P3 – T2


Schedule/Communication Issues

GRIF Do we need to know the GRIF sub-cluster structure ? Talk with specific site managers ?

Beijing What does association mean here ? WAN endpoint or

integration/support ? What are plans/schedule for visible activity ?


Issues/concerns from DDT and LT

GRIF We have some indication of mismatch between the

resources made available by various GRIF subclusters and the expectation from CMS for (even a ) small T2

Network, Storage, CPU Is this so ? Do we need a dedicated discussion ? Meeting ? How much is this relevant in view of a future uniform

storage element for GRIF sites ?


SAM for CMS


SAM issues

No specific issue

But sites do not seem to take this seriously They fail and take no action An action can also be a complain, or a question

Would you rather wait for users to complain ?


Job Robot Issues

Seems the exercise was useful for GRIF Would you agree ? When analysis at GRIF ?

Why so much difference between the two Belgian sites ? Both for JR and analysis

Be-ULB-UVB

GRIFBe-UCL

In2P3-CC

In2P3-CC–T2

Analysis jobs in last months

http://tinyurl.com/222xcj


Storage issues

GRIF Single storage vs. 4 small buffers

IN2P3 How will users send jobs to T2 rather then T1 ? Does it matter ? (both CE matches requirements)

site and networking commissioning appendix specific to lyon visit

Documents